Replace a frontend dependency in parallel

Why use this

1. A frontend dependency replacement can hide differences in component APIs, sizing defaults and accessible labels. Parallel edits may remove all visible imports while leaving dynamic references, package metadata or visually important behavior inconsistent.

2. A migration inventory could connect each usage category to a proposed replacement and preservation check. Maintainers could assign independent work safely while keeping visual and accessibility review separate from a mechanical dependency-name change.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Identify differing usage patterns and shared migration assumptions across components rather than applying one replacement blindly.

Simpler alternative

Use a deterministic codemod when the old and new APIs have a complete, reviewed one-to-one mapping.

Unsuitable when

The replacement's behavior or licensing is unresolved, or no one can review visual regressions.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Usage inventory

   Owner

   Frontend maintainer

   Minimum scope

   Fictional imports, component props, dynamic references and package entries

   Quality check

   Identify accessibility labels and style-dependent usage.

2. Name

   Replacement contract

   Owner

   Engineering owner

   Minimum scope

   Approved equivalents, preserved behavior and review scope

   Quality check

   Mark cases without a direct mapping.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Offline usage descriptors and a proposed migration map without package installation.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: current runtime, dependency versions, build toolchain and replacement API behavior.

External actions requiring approval

1. Dependency installation, repository edits, external code exposure, merge and release.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Usage-to-replacement map with work ownership, exception queue and proposed visual/accessibility checks.

Critical checks

1. Dynamic references and package metadata are included in the inventory.

2. Preservation checks cover meaning and presentation, not just import removal.

Missing output evidence

No new workflow run or output inspection was performed for this overlay; use the canonical source-outcome references.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A replacement icon lacks the old component's accessible naming behavior.

   Why it matters

   A visually similar result may be less usable.

   Proposed response

   Flag the semantic difference and request an explicit accessible-label plan.

2. Signal

   Two workers update the same shared wrapper differently.

   Why it matters

   Combined changes can produce inconsistent component behavior.

   Proposed response

   Assign one wrapper owner and require dependent mappings to use the reviewed interface.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Inventory usage categories and shared migration boundaries.

Ongoing review

1. Resolve unmapped cases and inspect later visual and regression evidence.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: package compatibility, migration effort and testing costs.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

A fictional inventory includes a dynamic icon name, an accessibility-dependent wrapper and overlapping worker ownership.

Acceptance checks

1. Flag unmapped dynamic and semantic cases.

2. Resolve ownership in the plan without changing or testing code.

Stop conditions

1. Package retrieval, code edits, rendering or test execution is required.

Limits

1. An inventory check is not a successful dependency migration or evidence of preserved frontend behavior.